I don't think you know the scotsman fallacy, goonbrain.

It's not evidence because you read it on Facebook. It's evidence when it's presented in a court of law. So why doesn't the crack Trump legal team introduce into evidence in an actual proceeding the evidence that is showing up on your Facebook feed? Because knowingly misrepresenting facts on tv or social media isn't against the law, but doing so in an actual court or filing will get you disbarred or worse. Even Rudy knows this.

It has literally been introduced in legal hearings in multiple states. What are you talking about?

I mean, do you think people who are signing sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury do not constitute evidence? Why would they do this otherwise? Have you watched any of the hearings? Are you aware that many of these legal challenges are being presented by constitutionalists who don't even like trump, but are concerned about election integrity writ large? How do you reconcile this broad pushback to any notion that the election was compromised by people who had a seething irrational hate for orange man to the democrats doing literally the exact same thing after losing in 2016?

It's maddening talking to these indoctrinated people isn't it? I honestly used to think they were malicious. Now I know they are just indoctrinated. They are fed spoonfuls of lies all day that are reinforced by their social media echo chambers. If you send a link that's not on the approved reading list, they outright attack you for being stupid. It's thorough and unnerving. But I think with all these states finally standing up and realizing that it's not just then people in each individual state being robbed by this fraud, it's the whole country's votes being stolen. Hopefully they will start to wake up.

So no offense but you just keep displaying how little you know about how the justice system works. Affidavits don’t mean shit (speaking as a lawyer). You know why? Because you’d need direct evidence that the person knowingly lied. In this instance, that’s essentially impossible to obtain because the person is just saying “Um well uhhh I saw X happen.” So someone can make something up in this circumstance and it’s virtually impossible to ding them on it. You’re not going to find direct evidence that they lied because it’s all just made up in their head (and absence of evidence proving their claim isn’t sufficient to get a perjury charge in this type of context).

That’s why in court proceedings affidavits aren’t considered important from an evidentiary perspective.

All those "damning affadavits" also contain A LOT of "may have" and "i think i saw". Wow, you signed a document. WWHHOOOOAAAAAAAA amazing evidence!!!! So if I sign an affadavit saying I believe santa claus assaulted me in my sleep, I believe it was him because I saw a red suit, white beard, and black boots, It happened, right? Santa claus MUST have assaulted me, since i signed the paper. Right?

there are a lot of mad people in this thread

As much as i hate to agree with this fake lawyer without real evidence i dont see anything happen.

What we will have in 2024 is video cameras at every facility, ID Checking, Databases, Maybe even fingerprints. Donald will make it happen and reign supreme in 2024

There are video cameras in every voting facility... Hell lets give em the DNA of every single citizen so they can know every single thing about us. Then, they can sell that info to insurance companies to jack up our rates. Your local government already sold your info to companies to send you ads... You want to trust them with more?? LOL

Biden To Have Entire WH East And West Wings Showered With Disinfectant Right After Trump Leaves